Massive climate change over time isn't really the issue, though. Ice Ages wax and wane. Always have, always will. During Oxygen Isotope Stage 5e (the last interglacial, about 125,000 years ago), it was warm enough for hippos & other such fauna to wallow in what is now Trafalgar Square. By contrast, at the Last Glacial Maximum (approx 19,000 years ago), it was too cold for humans to even exist. Hunter-gatherer populations simply upped sticks to the sheltered river valleys of southern Europe.

The point (for me, at least) is that Homo sapiens is starting to have a demonstratable (& unprecedented) effect on feedback mechanisms - regardless of 'background noise.' Sure, the eventual outcome might be a moot point (whatever its appropriation by politicians)- and in geological terms, we occupy but the briefest moment in time... Nonetheless, in tandem with other concerns (pollution, resource use, habitat loss), I'd say that there was more substance to [some of it] than just "propaganda."

As for "self-hatred, bossiness and a longing to believe in something" - certainly, I would often agre with you. But I'm not sure I'd accuse the British Antarctic Survey (or David Attenborough!) of such behaviour. By playing Charles II to the the puritan eco-lobby's Oliver Cromwell, you seem to suggest that people should not care about such issues. They are entitled to care - very deeply.

Posted by: sobonty at December 8, 2006 05:50 PM

Is there any conclusive proof about the feedback?

I have yet to see any.

Warming, yes. Athropocentric? Unproven.

Thing is, the Environmental lobby has now become a refuge for the Sociofascists who want to control every aspect of our existence.

When that oleaginous alien Miliband talked of a carbon credit card, he was not joking - he wants to know everything we do, spend, use.

Posted by: Roger Thornhill at December 14, 2006 02:09 PM

As Bjorn Lomborg demonstrates in his controversial book, even if we accept the fact that it is happening and we are (at least partly) the cause, we still do not have to subscribe to the self-hatred and bossiness. There are far more pressing problem for humanity.

Lomborg also demonstrates statistically that the Global Warming lobby are dishonest.

Finally, even if the worst case scenarios are true, schools need to teach basic science before they can teach such things.

Posted by: Serf at December 19, 2006 09:43 AM

Yes, and this is a first class example of a fundamental epistemological error that is endemic to schools, ie: that teachers commonly dare not risk demonstrating uncertainty or a capacity for fallibilism to their pupils, for fear that anarchy ensues.

Pupils therefore often leave school with an unwritten assumption that truth has very little to do with what is actually out there, and everything to do with what someone in power says it is. This in turn may well account for the appalling rise of moral relativism which has plagued this country so badly, for example, in the way it informed the immediate responses to the July 7th bombings.

(Actually suspect that the bombings were a bit of a wake up call in this regard, but desperately sad that this needed to be the case.)

Posted by: Carlotta at December 20, 2006 06:33 AM

I'm afraid that our schools are unable, and unwilling, to teach the basics of anything. They are proud of the fact that they teach subjects interactively, holistically, how they interact with society, with the community and with related subjects etc. It is inevitable that fear of global warming will be passed on to our children in all it’s ideological frenzy, whether scientifically justified or not, just as other leftie notions like a dislike of the free market, support for equality of outcome, and a disdain for competitiveness are being forced down our kids throats.

I would contend that this approach might be to some extent acceptable if the alternative views are also presented, and that this was only done after children have mastered the basics of a subject to the point they can use their own knowledge to distinguish between brainwashing dogma, ideology and fact.

Unfortunately, the initial “mastering of the subject” is intentionally neglected. Teaching the basics of any subject, particularly languages, English and the sciences is now seen as oppressive and authoritarian. It is assumed that the little darlings are turned off the pleasurable experience of discovery and enlightenment that education is now perceived to be.

Posted by: John East at December 20, 2006 01:54 PM

When the situation calls on this issue I try not to argue the science (I am not a scientist and not qualified)But what I try and do is to get the other side to concede that there is a debate going on.
This I can usually do,by citing lots of contrary opinions.
This tactic totally hamstrings the other side. At every attempt at indoctrination I merely say "why are you determined to impose one side when you yourself have admitted there is a vigorous debate"

Posted by: Barry Wood at December 21, 2006 09:59 AM